First .dev Domains Go Live(blog.google)
blog.google
First .dev Domains Go Live
https://blog.google/technology/developers/hello-dev/
226 コメント
I used to work for a registry, and ICANN had very strict escrow rules for registrys'.
This was for a real TLD but I suspect that there is something similar for vanity domains.
This was for a real TLD but I suspect that there is something similar for vanity domains.
The new gTLDs are just as much “real TLDs” to ICANN as the older gTLDs and ccTLDs.
The new gTLDs are much more "real" than the ccTLDs in the sense that they are actually governed in ways that protect registrants. A ccTLD operator can unilaterally yank any domain they want with no restrictions whatsoever. They aren't contracted parties.
The original tld expansion was a lot more involved than ponying up your $250,0000 from what I recall.
ICANN is a scam. It should have abolished canned TLDs altogether, but instead turned them into a profiteering scheme.
There’s no reason that a domain can’t end in ANY string. Bingo, no more fake “shortage.”
There’s no reason that a domain can’t end in ANY string. Bingo, no more fake “shortage.”
For what reasons does Google actually ban accounts?
Google owns Youtube, which bans people for any reason they feel like, including people for whom it had become a full-time job with their channel monetization paying the bills.
It is extremely unwise and very much against the founding spirit of the Internet to allow one company this much control, especially one that has shown itself to be censorious in the past.
It is extremely unwise and very much against the founding spirit of the Internet to allow one company this much control, especially one that has shown itself to be censorious in the past.
Wait, does a YT ban extend to all Google products? Does this lock someone out of, say, webmaster tools?
Not normally but they do ban your entire account if their bots believe you've been very naughty.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47278362
Despite the ban being due to a violation of YT terms of service they lost their entire Google account. > "But because my Google account was terminated as well I didn't have access to my email so I couldn't see what happened."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47278362
Despite the ban being due to a violation of YT terms of service they lost their entire Google account. > "But because my Google account was terminated as well I didn't have access to my email so I couldn't see what happened."
Now imagine you had a profitable business on Google Cloud and this happened.
There are even horror stories about personal accounts getting banned and the ban subsequently propagating to the corporate GApps account of the violator's employer, thus completely shutting down corporate email and document sharing.
This kind of nonsense happened rather frequently when Google+ was suspending people for using "not-real" names. The suspension extended to youtube, to gmail, and to other services.
No, it doesn't.
Information withheld - https://www.reddit.com/r/k12sysadmin/comments/9qg2vw/google_...
System errors - https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/7nrx07/google_...
We're twenty years in so likely there are actually thousands of legitimate reasons, the problem is their system seems designed to dismiss any evidence to the contrary so a false positive is a lifetime ban too.
System errors - https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/7nrx07/google_...
We're twenty years in so likely there are actually thousands of legitimate reasons, the problem is their system seems designed to dismiss any evidence to the contrary so a false positive is a lifetime ban too.
>I remember your story. I clicked this expecting to hear that everything is wonderful and you're living the good life. Instead, the nightmare continues. I'm sorry
Something is really fucked up if getting one of your Google accounts banned is a "nightmare".
To everybody who's reading this: make the necessary arrangements to make sure getting one of your Google accounts banned is not the end of the world for you.
Something is really fucked up if getting one of your Google accounts banned is a "nightmare".
To everybody who's reading this: make the necessary arrangements to make sure getting one of your Google accounts banned is not the end of the world for you.
Not sure why you're being downvoted, but perhaps lack of empathy? For people dependent on Youtube for their income, it's not easy (or perhaps even possible) to just diversify so you aren't dependent on Google.
Your advice is good tho. Diversify as much as possible so that any one company can't ruin your life.
Your advice is good tho. Diversify as much as possible so that any one company can't ruin your life.
Maybe, I don't know. The thing is that most people don't make a living out of youtube. But they might have a gmail address, then lots of files in drive or photos, stuff from work in docs, their schedule in calendar... Losing all of that at once is like having the rug pulled from under their feet. I'm just saying: if that's your case, please diversify.
Credit card chargebacks to the Google store can do it.
Reselling a Pixel Phone:
https://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=68066.0
https://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=68066.0
do you have a registrar recommendation? I'm planning on a .dev being my first domain.
I've had good experiences with Namecheap in the past.
I have no good idea how it compares to others these days but Gandi has had pre-registrations for .dev.
I also have a good track record with Namecheap for bussiness and personal domains.
The domains customers aren't tied to Google user accounts. You buy them from the regular registrars like Gandi.net or (heaven forbid) Godaddy, and use them from your dashboards there. You don't have to use a gmail address anywhere.
If you buy them through Google Domains you need your Google account to renew domains, set nameservers etc, which is why these other registrars should be used.
This same argument actually dates back years for not using your web host for your domain registrar, because of contrived problems hindering domain transfers.
This same argument actually dates back years for not using your web host for your domain registrar, because of contrived problems hindering domain transfers.
In addition to using another registrar, it's generally a good idea to use single-purpose email accounts not associated with your identity to log in to places like Gandi and Namecheap.
And definitely use a registrar that supports 2-factor auth.
But Google Domains ain't issuing this TLD; Google Registry is, and they don't even push their sibling service, it's shown as any other.
So I don't see the relevance in their thread.
So I don't see the relevance in their thread.
Everything I said is true for Google Registry too... and anywhere else Google sells domains. They each should be ensuring domain portability for their respective customers and so far they're not doing that.
Can you clarify what exactly you think we're not doing? (Google Registry, that is.) Transfers are a contractually mandated requirement by ICANN, and we definitely support them.
Also, because of GDPR and WHOIS privacy/proxies, we frequently don't even know who the registrant for a given domain is anyway.
Also, because of GDPR and WHOIS privacy/proxies, we frequently don't even know who the registrant for a given domain is anyway.
What is the support number for people to call when Google locks them out of their account because of an unrelated issue with a separate Alphabet property? There is an established track record for Google screwing over people unfairly.
What happens to the domains in your account if your Google account has become banned?
Same question for your colleagues at Google Domains.
Same question for your colleagues at Google Domains.
What account? There's nothing to login to, you can't buy domains directly on Google Registry.
[deleted]
My bad, it's Google Domains.
[deleted]
I think that's what he meant by, "you should definitely be getting your .dev through a different domain provider."
Me: "Wow [myfirstname].dev is available! I gotta get it!"
Aaaaaaand its $11,500.
Aaaaaaand its $11,500.
Yeah, it's a Dutch auction. This is the first price step, so everything costs that much today, even adgfhjklhajklsdfghaksdfasdf.dev. The price will go down according to the schedule, and it'll be bought when someone is willing to pay that much for it.
The rich get first pick. How very capitalist.
The auction isn't designed to be fair for all, it's designed to allocate domains efficiently (in the economic sense).
Mr. mslev does not consider [hisfirstname].dev to be worth $11k, so he will not buy it yet. But someone else might consider [hisfirstname].dev to be worth $11k, so they will buy it. However, if nobody else values [hisfirstname].dev much, then Mr. mslev will buy it when it costs $12 (or earlier, if he thinks it's worth more).
So domain XYZ.dev is given to whoever values having XYZ.dev the most. And yes, people need money to demonstrate that they value it so much.
This also helps prevent domain squatting. I would love to buy asdf.dev and apple.dev and facebook.dev and hello.dev. apple.dev and facebook.dev would be worth it even at $11k because you could resell them to the actual companies, but laws effectively prevent this. However, I would not want to buy asdf.dev and hello.dev at $11k unless I know I could resell them for more than $11k. If I could resell them for more than $11k, that means someone else (the buyer) would buy it right now at $11k.
If everything was $12, bad guys would buy up asdf.dev and hello.dev and everything they could get their hands on, but now that's not a valid strategy unless asdf.dev and hello.dev are actually worth that much (or you'll lose money reselling them). And if they are worth $xxx, they will get bought at auction when the price drops to $xxx.
Speed will still win (buy valuable-name.dev at the crack of dawn when auction begins, before anyone else has a chance to, and resell it within hours), but hoarding domains long-term is no longer an effective strategy.
Mr. mslev does not consider [hisfirstname].dev to be worth $11k, so he will not buy it yet. But someone else might consider [hisfirstname].dev to be worth $11k, so they will buy it. However, if nobody else values [hisfirstname].dev much, then Mr. mslev will buy it when it costs $12 (or earlier, if he thinks it's worth more).
So domain XYZ.dev is given to whoever values having XYZ.dev the most. And yes, people need money to demonstrate that they value it so much.
This also helps prevent domain squatting. I would love to buy asdf.dev and apple.dev and facebook.dev and hello.dev. apple.dev and facebook.dev would be worth it even at $11k because you could resell them to the actual companies, but laws effectively prevent this. However, I would not want to buy asdf.dev and hello.dev at $11k unless I know I could resell them for more than $11k. If I could resell them for more than $11k, that means someone else (the buyer) would buy it right now at $11k.
If everything was $12, bad guys would buy up asdf.dev and hello.dev and everything they could get their hands on, but now that's not a valid strategy unless asdf.dev and hello.dev are actually worth that much (or you'll lose money reselling them). And if they are worth $xxx, they will get bought at auction when the price drops to $xxx.
Speed will still win (buy valuable-name.dev at the crack of dawn when auction begins, before anyone else has a chance to, and resell it within hours), but hoarding domains long-term is no longer an effective strategy.
Exactly. The alternative of not doing a Dutch auction at launch is much worst; valuable names end up in the hands of squatters who are perfectly happy to sit on many names that remain unused so long as they can sell a few at exorbitant prices. The average non-squatter registrant is better off with EAP and premium prices, as the prices you pay during EAP are lower than what a squatter would try to get out of you for the same domain.
Actually it seems fairer than a traditional auction, since there is no chance of a bidding war.
It's much more fair this way. If domains were cheap right away, bots would buy all them up. This gives people the chance to buy a domain- this round is more for businesses, but future rounds in the hundred of dollars will be better for the average person.
How can it be called fair at all when only the rich get first pick?
> If domains were cheap right away, bots would buy all them up.
No. Bots would buy them all up if bots were allowed to buy them all up. It's laughably easy to prevent bots from buying domain names if you don't want bots to buy domain names.
> This gives people the chance to buy a domain
This gives rich people/businesses the chance to buy a domain.
> future rounds in the hundred of dollars will be better for the average person.
After the rich have had their pick. Again, I don't see how you can with a straight face call this fair.
Here's a suggestion: Offer domains to all humans who can pay a reasonable non-refundable application fee. Block bots. When a domain receives more than one offer, randomly assign it to an applicant. Block domain transfers permanently to prevent squatters. Let any domain that isn't renewed fall back into the pool and become available (again to a randomly assigned new owner).
I'm sure there are pitfalls doing it this way, but it took me a minute to come up with that. A few hours of thought, some robust debate, and I'm certain we can come up with a fairer way to assign domain names.
> If domains were cheap right away, bots would buy all them up.
No. Bots would buy them all up if bots were allowed to buy them all up. It's laughably easy to prevent bots from buying domain names if you don't want bots to buy domain names.
> This gives people the chance to buy a domain
This gives rich people/businesses the chance to buy a domain.
> future rounds in the hundred of dollars will be better for the average person.
After the rich have had their pick. Again, I don't see how you can with a straight face call this fair.
Here's a suggestion: Offer domains to all humans who can pay a reasonable non-refundable application fee. Block bots. When a domain receives more than one offer, randomly assign it to an applicant. Block domain transfers permanently to prevent squatters. Let any domain that isn't renewed fall back into the pool and become available (again to a randomly assigned new owner).
I'm sure there are pitfalls doing it this way, but it took me a minute to come up with that. A few hours of thought, some robust debate, and I'm certain we can come up with a fairer way to assign domain names.
> It's laughably easy to prevent bots from buying domain names
That's where you are wrong.
That's where you are wrong.
Mine is not available either and I doubt someone paid $11,500 for an Italian name with the dev extension. How come? My guess is some providers are "reserving" them.
Which is exactly why I won't check on any domains I want until I'm ready to buy them: I don't need a "domain taster" locking them up for profit.
Try to register through Gandi. They give you options that decrease in price all the way down to ~$16 -- that's the "get it when it GAs" price. If someone scoops it up before you, you're refunded. Otherwise, it's yours.
I managed to get <lastname>.dev, and it's a somewhat common last name, for $133.50 on the "GA" pricing. I expect someone will grab it before then. But if not...
I managed to get <lastname>.dev, and it's a somewhat common last name, for $133.50 on the "GA" pricing. I expect someone will grab it before then. But if not...
Nah, it says "Unavailable" on Gandi. It seems that somebody paid full price, although it is not operative => mauricio.dev
Unfortunately, 'mauricio' is on the global domain reserve list administered by ICANN, so it cannot be registered on any ngTLD. I believe it's Mauritius in another language?
Oh, interesting, yes this is "mauritius" in Spanish a not so common name. I didn't know this, thank you for pointing it out. I guess that list is recent as mauricio.com and mauricio.co belongs to regular people and are currently working.
Do you happen to have a link to said list? A quick googling returned nothing relevant for me.
Do you happen to have a link to said list? A quick googling returned nothing relevant for me.
.com is a legacy gTLD, which existed long before these restrictions were codified in 2012 for the new gTLD program. .co is a ccTLD (it's for Colombia), and ccTLDs also predate the gTLD program and are not subject to the gTLD program restrictions besides.
I believe item #3 on this page is relevant:
https://www.icann.org/resources/country-territory-names#rese...
https://www.icann.org/resources/country-territory-names#rese...
Yeah that's it, it's Mauritius in Spanish apparently.
ICANN definitely went overboard on these required reservations, but of course we have no choice but to comply.
ICANN definitely went overboard on these required reservations, but of course we have no choice but to comply.
Just wait a week. If it is still available on the 28th it will be $12
"Vamoose, provincial. These are not your lands."
There is one thing that annoys me about generic TLDs like .dev, .website, .cloud, .network etc. For example, Salesforce have https://crm.dev - are they the only CRM in the world? Hell no, but they're the biggest, so they can be the only one in the .dev space. Same with workers.dev.
Owning a category domain name is not a guarantee of success or market position. (ex. pets.com)
Think of all the companies with domain names that do not reference their product category. (ex. google.com, amazon.com, etc.). It's not like they needed search.com or shopping.com to be successful.
Think of all the companies with domain names that do not reference their product category. (ex. google.com, amazon.com, etc.). It's not like they needed search.com or shopping.com to be successful.
What's your proposed alternative? That generic category names should be disallowed within a TLD? Or that some public or community-driven version of a for-profit service should control the generic names?
Maybe names that have obvious “generic” squatter value—i.e. names that (at the time of their attempted purchase) describe entire verticals, rather than uniquely identifying a business—should be put up for auction rather than being first-come-first-served.
(That would also include names that describe a vertical that someone tried to trademark into being the name of a business anyway: pets.com and the like. If that trademark isn’t already well known, then this is just an attempt to end-run the auction system, rather than a valid claim.)
Given that TLDs can decide their own allocation policies, I’m surprised none of them have tried this yet.
(That would also include names that describe a vertical that someone tried to trademark into being the name of a business anyway: pets.com and the like. If that trademark isn’t already well known, then this is just an attempt to end-run the auction system, rather than a valid claim.)
Given that TLDs can decide their own allocation policies, I’m surprised none of them have tried this yet.
Well the .dev domains are going up in a "dutch auction" style.
The price starts off at an insane $11,500 per domain, and then slowly over the course of 2 weeks goes down to $12 per domain, first come first serve.
It's a pretty good solution in my opinion to the problem of how to "fairly" distribute domain names.
I want to pick up a few, but I'm going to wait until they are down to the lowest tier as i'm pretty sure nobody is going to pay even $100 for them. And if they do, well then they probably want it more than I do!
The price starts off at an insane $11,500 per domain, and then slowly over the course of 2 weeks goes down to $12 per domain, first come first serve.
It's a pretty good solution in my opinion to the problem of how to "fairly" distribute domain names.
I want to pick up a few, but I'm going to wait until they are down to the lowest tier as i'm pretty sure nobody is going to pay even $100 for them. And if they do, well then they probably want it more than I do!
> The price starts off at an insane $11,500 per domain
It's only insane if no one wants to pay that much. I bet tons of companies are willing to pay that for premium .dev domains.
It's only insane if no one wants to pay that much. I bet tons of companies are willing to pay that for premium .dev domains.
>should be put up for auction rather than being first-come-first-served.
Have you by chance heard of the Coase Theorem in economics? Which states that given that property rights are well defined and transaction costs relatively low, initial distribution of the property rights will not affect the efficiency of the final outcome reached. In other words, if a given company is given the rights to something and some other company would value that thing more, we do not have a problem, they will negotiate to the efficient outcome on their own by trade.
Have you by chance heard of the Coase Theorem in economics? Which states that given that property rights are well defined and transaction costs relatively low, initial distribution of the property rights will not affect the efficiency of the final outcome reached. In other words, if a given company is given the rights to something and some other company would value that thing more, we do not have a problem, they will negotiate to the efficient outcome on their own by trade.
They are, the domains are reverse-dutch auctioned. Buying a .dev domain today is like ~$10000, it'll be $12 in 2 weeks.
Edit: Normal dutch, not reverse.
Edit: Normal dutch, not reverse.
> reverse-dutch auction
Why? Even if it's "cute", it serves no other purpose than racking up prices and keeping buyers second-guessing themselves. Just run a normal Dutch or a second-price auction.
Why? Even if it's "cute", it serves no other purpose than racking up prices and keeping buyers second-guessing themselves. Just run a normal Dutch or a second-price auction.
This is a normal Dutch auction.
If your question is why not run a standard auction, the answer is that operational overhead to do that is much higher than simply having a given price for creations on a given day, and there'd thus be fewer registrars participating. You need a whole eBay-like experience to run a standard auction; it's a non-trivial amount of work just to support one launch.
If your question is why not run a standard auction, the answer is that operational overhead to do that is much higher than simply having a given price for creations on a given day, and there'd thus be fewer registrars participating. You need a whole eBay-like experience to run a standard auction; it's a non-trivial amount of work just to support one launch.
I stand corrected on the name. The operational overhead might be reasonable excuse, but I don't think a second-price auction would necessitate that much effort. You could get by with just a form and running a query on it.
It's a LOT of effort. And said effort is required not just at the registry level, but also at the dozens of registrars that support EAP.
This isn't a theoretical concern. We actually did use standard auctions for our first three TLD launches. They were operational nightmares. The Dutch auctions we're using now are much more light-weight, have greater participation, and are now the preferred way of doing launches across the entire industry. We're not even the ones who started using Dutch auctions for TLDs.
You'll just have to trust the word of someone who's been doing this stuff for years that the alternatives really are worse.
This isn't a theoretical concern. We actually did use standard auctions for our first three TLD launches. They were operational nightmares. The Dutch auctions we're using now are much more light-weight, have greater participation, and are now the preferred way of doing launches across the entire industry. We're not even the ones who started using Dutch auctions for TLDs.
You'll just have to trust the word of someone who's been doing this stuff for years that the alternatives really are worse.
The thing is that DNS infrastructure (which registrars basically rely directly on) is very OLAP oriented. bind(8) and DNS daemons like it are DBMSes in some sense, with replication and serving highly-concurrent reads being their primary focuses, and inserts/updates/deletes taking about fifth place compared to those needs. And registries (and sometimes registrars as well) build their entire infrastructure to use the DNS-daemon “store” as the canonical store, rather than having it be a secondary system synchronized into from an online OLTP DBMS. So this writes-are-expensive paradigm creeps into the entire DNS infrastructure, including things seemingly far away from the core, like the registrars’ control panels.
A good comparison is blockchains, which are also highly-replicated, cheap-reads expensive-writes DBMSes. CryptoKitties chose Dutch auctions to sell their kitties for a similar reason to that of the .dev registry: since putting state into their “DBMS” is so expensive, they wanted as stateless a system as possible. (In their system, even the current price is just statelessly computed by comparing the client’s time-at-bid to the chain’s recorded start-of-auction time. The only writes needed are to start the auction, to place the winning bid, or to cancel the auction.)
A good comparison is blockchains, which are also highly-replicated, cheap-reads expensive-writes DBMSes. CryptoKitties chose Dutch auctions to sell their kitties for a similar reason to that of the .dev registry: since putting state into their “DBMS” is so expensive, they wanted as stateless a system as possible. (In their system, even the current price is just statelessly computed by comparing the client’s time-at-bid to the chain’s recorded start-of-auction time. The only writes needed are to start the auction, to place the winning bid, or to cancel the auction.)
Apple.com?
Probably the former as it doesn’t require as much aggrandizement.
I wonder whether a different approach would work. Instead of basing TLD name spacing on nebulous terms (com,net,org,io,edu,etc) create a naming system that better reflects the real world. The abstracted terms lead to clashing. So addressing actually reflects physical addressing. There’s only ever going to be one company at Apple’s corporate address. Not sure how it’d work.
Edit-the tech to do this via gps even exists today.
I wonder whether a different approach would work. Instead of basing TLD name spacing on nebulous terms (com,net,org,io,edu,etc) create a naming system that better reflects the real world. The abstracted terms lead to clashing. So addressing actually reflects physical addressing. There’s only ever going to be one company at Apple’s corporate address. Not sure how it’d work.
Edit-the tech to do this via gps even exists today.
The irrelevance of physical location is one of the advantages of the Internet; adding that to addresses just to provide an unique key seems absurd. Would a company have to change all their addresses if they move their headquarters? What if the country's street system changes? And what about individuals?
I don't see a need to change the current system, but I'd rather move to random strings than tying them to some irrelevant and mutable piece of data.
I don't see a need to change the current system, but I'd rather move to random strings than tying them to some irrelevant and mutable piece of data.
We could just give everyone who wants a domain a UUID.
My site could be 'uuid://09953e01-8164-4e40-8504-ed5507b50b03'.
This seems to solve all of your complaints. No clashing, reflects the real world (names are all meaningless is reality, and physical locations are nebulous).
> There’s only ever going to be one company at Apple’s corporate address.
On the other hand, there are corporate addresses that have many companies, and many domains, and many distinct technical departments with different needs.
What you're missing here is that domain names are meant to be easy to remember. That is their only goal.
They were created so people didn't have to memorize ipv4 addresses. Proposing that we use corporate addresses or gps coordinates is absolutely unrealistic and against the spirit of the domain name system in the first place.
My site could be 'uuid://09953e01-8164-4e40-8504-ed5507b50b03'.
This seems to solve all of your complaints. No clashing, reflects the real world (names are all meaningless is reality, and physical locations are nebulous).
> There’s only ever going to be one company at Apple’s corporate address.
On the other hand, there are corporate addresses that have many companies, and many domains, and many distinct technical departments with different needs.
What you're missing here is that domain names are meant to be easy to remember. That is their only goal.
They were created so people didn't have to memorize ipv4 addresses. Proposing that we use corporate addresses or gps coordinates is absolutely unrealistic and against the spirit of the domain name system in the first place.
> They were created so people didn't have to memorize ipv4 addresses
New problem: memorising a UUID is even harder than memorising an IP address. Someone will eventually invent a DNS for the UUID-space, and we'll have this problem all over again.
New problem: memorising a UUID is even harder than memorising an IP address. Someone will eventually invent a DNS for the UUID-space, and we'll have this problem all over again.
I'd be legit on board with that, I really just want a stable identifier that's independent of routing information or network or whatever.
If anyone actually wants to test this: IPv6 is already a modified version of this UUID plan. The designers were even kind enough in designing IPv6 to provide some nice memory shortcuts over UUID in the IPv6 address style, such as :: to fill runs of zeroes.
It might~ be fun to see how much of the web you can explore just memorizing IPv6 addresses rather than using DNS.
It might~ be fun to see how much of the web you can explore just memorizing IPv6 addresses rather than using DNS.
I know we're both just joking, but unfortunately due to SNI headers and load balancers, memorizing ipv6 addresses doesn't necessarily get you the right site.
The DNS system has also managed to make ip addresses less stable over time.
The DNS system has also managed to make ip addresses less stable over time.
Go checkout Beaker Browser (using dat) or IPFS.
So there would an .apple tld, with address like dev.apple, buy.apple and so on?
Indeed there is a .apple TLD: https://icannwiki.org/.apple
I haven't seen any uses of it in the wild though.
I haven't seen any uses of it in the wild though.
https://experience.apple/ipad-pro/
https://share.newsroom.apple/
For future reference, search Google for "site:*.dev"
For future reference, search Google for "site:*.dev"
> There is one thing that annoys me about generic TLDs like .dev, .website, .cloud, .network
And this doesn't annoy you about '.com' or '.org'?
'pets.com' is owned by petsmart, and they're sure not the only pet store. Practically every generic sounding '.com' has been taken and has the "issue" you cite. 'x.org' was registered in the early 90s, and the Xorg foundation certainly isn't the only 'X' out there.
It's a little too late to protest now, this problem has existed since the dawn of the domain name system.
And this doesn't annoy you about '.com' or '.org'?
'pets.com' is owned by petsmart, and they're sure not the only pet store. Practically every generic sounding '.com' has been taken and has the "issue" you cite. 'x.org' was registered in the early 90s, and the Xorg foundation certainly isn't the only 'X' out there.
It's a little too late to protest now, this problem has existed since the dawn of the domain name system.
First come, first served. Just like real estate. It's not a trademark or anything.
Except it's not, Google has price ranges for registration dates. So if you wanted to registered today (Feb 19th) that's gonna cost you $11,500, but if you want to wait until it's free, that's 10 days from now.
https://domains.google/tld/dev/
https://domains.google/tld/dev/
Some computer company gets to have apple.com, the car company does not have nissan.com, etc. etc.
I'm really glad the Nissan case went the way it did. It was the guy's family name after all, as well as a word in Hebrew.
For those who haven’t heard about it, the nissan.com fiasco was a crazy yet fascinating story: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_vs._Nissan_Com...
If I own box.com can no one else sell boxes? It's just a namespace.
You can buy it from Salesforce if you like it.
Kinda weird that Google issued itself web.dev and opensource.dev
It feels like those would've been better suited for non-profit orgs
It feels like those would've been better suited for non-profit orgs
Only if you for some reason attribute gravitas to it.
This is just yet another scattershot TLD. It's about as consequential as .ninja in the grand scheme of things.
This is just yet another scattershot TLD. It's about as consequential as .ninja in the grand scheme of things.
Well they are the owner/operator of .dev, so first dibs are for them.
The content on those domains is highly relevant and appears to be thorough. What do you think a non-profit could have used them for that would be better?
This landrush is different.
Try putting a one-character .dev domain in your cart (0.dev is available as of now). It's not a lump sum plus $12/year. It's thousands every year after registration.
In a way, I guess this is useful for deterring "domainers".
Even a 4-letter word or name .dev is hundreds of dollars a year. I wonder if the annual fee will drop as the days go by or just the purchase price.
Try putting a one-character .dev domain in your cart (0.dev is available as of now). It's not a lump sum plus $12/year. It's thousands every year after registration.
In a way, I guess this is useful for deterring "domainers".
Even a 4-letter word or name .dev is hundreds of dollars a year. I wonder if the annual fee will drop as the days go by or just the purchase price.
They're called "premium domains". I think all new gTLDs have them.
It's not "deterring" domainers, it's asserting an unfair monopoly over the practice itself.
How did Google get in charge of this? Why did they get to set the price points for registering these domains? ICANN really sold out for this one.
A couple years ago ICANN started letting companies buy customized TLDs through an auction process. I'm not sure how much they paid, but for comparison, Google tried buying .blog a while ago but was outbid by Automattic, who paid $19 million. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11686086
This is privatization of the web.
It's not. You can make your own DNS server and sell records to anyone you want. You just have to convince users to type in your address instead of 8.8.8.8.
Realistically, how could a project be setup around this?
I mean, how do we get everyday normal people to use it?
Its been attempted before (namecoin etc)...but maybe some advantage could be given to make it more attractive.
I mean, how do we get everyday normal people to use it?
Its been attempted before (namecoin etc)...but maybe some advantage could be given to make it more attractive.
The current state of things are OK enough that it's not worth it to normal people to make the switch. If that time ever comes, people will do so.
You can see all the ICANN auction results here [1]:
• Google paid $25 million for “.app” [1]
• Amazon paid ~$5 million for “.buy”
• Amazon paid $2.2 million for “.spot”
• Verisign paid $135 million for “.web”
• Automattic paid $19 million for “.blog”
• ICM paid $3 million for “.sex”
[1] https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applications...
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-just-paid-25-million-...
• Google paid $25 million for “.app” [1]
• Amazon paid ~$5 million for “.buy”
• Amazon paid $2.2 million for “.spot”
• Verisign paid $135 million for “.web”
• Automattic paid $19 million for “.blog”
• ICM paid $3 million for “.sex”
[1] https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applications...
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-just-paid-25-million-...
Slack and Github were so worried about someone cybersquatting that they were willing to pay $11,500 each to get those domains today? I guess that's the point of the Dutch auction system, but still seems like a waste of money.
For Microsoft (which owns GitHub) that is a tiny expense, but if they couldn't really afford it they could just file a dispute under UDRP.
But does the money come from Microsoft or from GitHub?
In a lot of the large companies I've worked, money is siloed from one operating unit to the next. They would send bills between units and sometimes even departments.
The larger the company, the more common this seemed. It's not one giant piggy bank.
In a lot of the large companies I've worked, money is siloed from one operating unit to the next. They would send bills between units and sometimes even departments.
The larger the company, the more common this seemed. It's not one giant piggy bank.
Does it really matter? Surely $11k is still a tiny amount for GitHub.
If you buy the domain during trademark holder's period, you pay the normal price, and not the day 1 landrush price. So no, Slack et. al. did not pay $11,500 to secure their name.
11k for a large company barely registers on their radar.
It's the cost of coffee for a couple of days or so.
Is this Venezuelan coffee?
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-venezuela-cafe-con-l...
But note I think you mean the $12 price but that’s only available from the 28th Feb. To buy today it is $11,500 (unless as others have pointed out you got it as part of the trademark sunrise period)
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-venezuela-cafe-con-l...
But note I think you mean the $12 price but that’s only available from the 28th Feb. To buy today it is $11,500 (unless as others have pointed out you got it as part of the trademark sunrise period)
Do TLDs even matter? I'm working on building a professional blog, and although a .dev TLD seems appropriate, using a cheaper one like .co or .be, or even .io seems functionally identical and a lot less costly. Paying hundreds or thousands for .dev seems like paying for pure vanity.
Is it going to help people reach your site? I kinda doubt it. Will Google use it to index your site differently? Maybe, but I dunno. I hope not, but it would kind of make sense.
Is it going to help people reach your site? I kinda doubt it. Will Google use it to index your site differently? Maybe, but I dunno. I hope not, but it would kind of make sense.
Just don't forget that .co is subject to Columbian jurisdiction, .be to Belgian jurisdiction, and .io to British jurisdiction. Also, .io has colonialist/imperialist baggage: https://gigaom.com/2014/06/30/the-dark-side-of-io-how-the-u-...
... as opposed to .dev, which is under what, google's jurisdiction?
Arguably, ICANN's jurisdiction.
gTLDs have very different rules under ICANN from ccTLDs. For the most part, ccTLDs, the ones governed by countries are very subject to those own countries laws/jurisdictions as ICANN has let countries be relatively sovereign in their domain name usage. This is a part of why it is even possible for there to be colonialist/imperialist baggage in domain names, because ICANN won't interfere in "local" politics, it "simply" allows ccTLD registrars to act as they see fit. Once "hip" ccTLDs have had domains seized in regime changes, for example.
Meanwhile, as mentioned elsewhere in these threads, ICANN has a much more hands on regulatory approach to non-country-code gTLDs. They have formal escrow requirements and complicated seizure/forfeiture rules intended to protect domain registrants. These are not entirely immune to political battles, but are generally more "internationally protected".
Anyway, the point is awareness. Use a ccTLD if it makes you happy, just be aware that there is a different risk footprint than a gTLD.
gTLDs have very different rules under ICANN from ccTLDs. For the most part, ccTLDs, the ones governed by countries are very subject to those own countries laws/jurisdictions as ICANN has let countries be relatively sovereign in their domain name usage. This is a part of why it is even possible for there to be colonialist/imperialist baggage in domain names, because ICANN won't interfere in "local" politics, it "simply" allows ccTLD registrars to act as they see fit. Once "hip" ccTLDs have had domains seized in regime changes, for example.
Meanwhile, as mentioned elsewhere in these threads, ICANN has a much more hands on regulatory approach to non-country-code gTLDs. They have formal escrow requirements and complicated seizure/forfeiture rules intended to protect domain registrants. These are not entirely immune to political battles, but are generally more "internationally protected".
Anyway, the point is awareness. Use a ccTLD if it makes you happy, just be aware that there is a different risk footprint than a gTLD.
ICANN's.
.dev is only prohibitively expensive during the pre-sale. After Feb 28, there will be no extra charge ($0 one-time fee).
Unless it's a "premium domain" which has a separate pricing structure, independent of the release phase, and renewal fees that stay higher forever.
Hence, right now kjaegrlkjnfvaf.dev is "$11,500 + $12/year" [0] while hn.dev is "$11,500 + $720/year" [1]
So alex.dev and aj.dev will cost $720/year forever, tim.dev, james.dev and emma.dev are $360/year, tony.dev and grace.dev are $180/year, olivia.dev and harry.dev are $98/year, yusef.dev, oscar.dev and sanjay.dev are $12/year.
Maybe not "prohibitive" but a big premium for the Alexes among us!
[0] https://domains.google.com/m/registrar/search?searchTerm=kja... [1] https://domains.google.com/m/registrar/search?searchTerm=hn....
Hence, right now kjaegrlkjnfvaf.dev is "$11,500 + $12/year" [0] while hn.dev is "$11,500 + $720/year" [1]
So alex.dev and aj.dev will cost $720/year forever, tim.dev, james.dev and emma.dev are $360/year, tony.dev and grace.dev are $180/year, olivia.dev and harry.dev are $98/year, yusef.dev, oscar.dev and sanjay.dev are $12/year.
Maybe not "prohibitive" but a big premium for the Alexes among us!
[0] https://domains.google.com/m/registrar/search?searchTerm=kja... [1] https://domains.google.com/m/registrar/search?searchTerm=hn....
Thank you for explaining this; I don't see these high yearly priced domains adequately disclosed anywhere. Google's marketing is all about how the "premium" is a one time fee for early registration, do they explain the higher yearly fee names anywhere?
Do Premium name stays premium forever? If they don't get registered for 2 - 3 years, would it drop its price?
I mean with these sort of pricing, are Startup suppose to be creative with their name or else they are forced to pay thousands to Google every year.
I mean with these sort of pricing, are Startup suppose to be creative with their name or else they are forced to pay thousands to Google every year.
The initial $11k premium threw me off at first, but if you click the (not immediately obvious) “Early Access” button you can get the full EAP pricing chart, or here’s a direct link: https://support.google.com/domains/answer/9232417?hl=en#inva...
To save some clicks (in addition to the $12/year):
Feb 19: $11.5k
Feb 20: $3.5k
Feb 21: $1150
Feb 22-24: $350
Feb 25-27: $125
After the 27th you only have to pay the normal $12/year rate.
To save some clicks (in addition to the $12/year):
Feb 19: $11.5k
Feb 20: $3.5k
Feb 21: $1150
Feb 22-24: $350
Feb 25-27: $125
After the 27th you only have to pay the normal $12/year rate.
TLDs matter, in that you want .com if you can get it.
Otherwise, personally I would use something more well known, but most of the differences are vanity, unless you're using a country specific TLD such as .co.uk or .us
I believe the price of a .dev eventually will go to $12/year. The hundreds/thousands price applies to people who want to pay more upfront to get the first shot at a "popular" domain name.
You just need to pay hundreds or thousands during EAP or for a "premium" domain. A regular .dev domain will cost less than $15/year.
.io domains cost a lot more than .dev domains.
On a per-year basis, yes. However, this is the subtotal at the checkout on namecheap when I typed in ravenstine.dev:
C$14,572.71
:(
C$14,572.71
:(
Yeah, because we're currently in the early access program, which is a Dutch auction. Once the auction ends on the 28th, domains will be available starting from the base registration price.
How does a company who owns a trademark get a domain early like Slack and Github did?
You need to get your trademark into the Trademark Clearinghouse: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse
Then you use a corporate domain name registrar to register it during the sunrise phase.
Then you use a corporate domain name registrar to register it during the sunrise phase.
Check again on the 29th.
https://google.dev/ says:
> There was no service found for the uri requested.
> There was no service found for the uri requested.
Yeah, that site isn't configured/launched yet; if/when it is, expect to see some kind of announcement. It's common to not resolve at all or display a simple error message when you already have your domain but aren't using it yet.
I'd really like to see which .dev domains are getting registered at the higher prices. Is there any way to see a feed of this data?
In theory, you can get that here: https://dnpedia.com/tlds/daily.php (write "dev" in the TLD column)
Doesn't seem to have those listed in the top article, though, not sure why. Maybe it'll update later.
EDIT: The official source seems to be https://czds.icann.org/
Doesn't seem to have those listed in the top article, though, not sure why. Maybe it'll update later.
EDIT: The official source seems to be https://czds.icann.org/
Such as https://workers.dev/
> ...it requires HTTPS to connect to all .dev websites. This protects people who visit your site against ad malware and tracking injection by internet service providers
The latter is true (it protects against injection), but I'm not sure how the former is. How would it protect against ad malware?
The latter is true (it protects against injection), but I'm not sure how the former is. How would it protect against ad malware?
My assumption from that sentence is that both "ad malware" and "ad tracking" are injected by some ISPs somewhere between the client and the server. By forcing HTTPS, you'd prevent some amount of this by ensuring the data in transit from client-to-server-to-client is encrypted (and thus mostly tamper-proof) using the .dev domain's public cert.
Also commonly injected by malicious or compromised WiFi routers.
It protects against ad malware injection by ISPs. It certainly doesn't protect users from the other end of the TLS socket.
Maybe they mean both the ad malware and tracking are injected by your ISP?
I think you are reading it wrong. It's not “(ad malware) and (tracking injection by ISPs)” but “(ad malware and tracking) injection by ISPs”.
But nobody with any respect for themselves has an un-ISP doing borderline illegal shit like that.
It hardly seems like a worthwhile problem to solve at gTLD-scale.
It hardly seems like a worthwhile problem to solve at gTLD-scale.
> But nobody with any respect for themselves has an un-ISP doing borderline illegal shit like that.
advertising and malware (both ad-related and not) injection by ISPs is a well documented global issue.
advertising and malware (both ad-related and not) injection by ISPs is a well documented global issue.
And not just ISPs. Governments, state-sponsored attackers, garden variety scammers, malware, compromised WiFi routers, etc.
If so, that’s a local problem and you fix it with regulation, not technology.
> If so, that’s a local problem
It's a well-documented global problem.
> and you fix it with regulation,
Governments are often not opposed, and sometimes active encouragers or procurers of the ISP injection.
Also, the HTTPS requirement for .dev domains is regulation, even if it isn't government regulation.
It's a well-documented global problem.
> and you fix it with regulation,
Governments are often not opposed, and sometimes active encouragers or procurers of the ISP injection.
Also, the HTTPS requirement for .dev domains is regulation, even if it isn't government regulation.
Burglary is illegal but you still lock your front door.
Defrauding someone electronically is illegal but you still encrypt your data in transit.
Defrauding someone electronically is illegal but you still encrypt your data in transit.
Hmm, any idea why the list of countries are so limited?
https://support.google.com/domains/answer/4639612?hl=en
https://support.google.com/domains/answer/4639612?hl=en
Google Domains is one of many registrars selling .dev domains. Feel free to use a different registrar that offers support in your country.
Prices for early access .dev domains in other providers are at least 2x higher.
For example, using GoDaddy, you can buy .dev domain for 800$ instead of 350$ on Friday (4th stage of early access).
For example, using GoDaddy, you can buy .dev domain for 800$ instead of 350$ on Friday (4th stage of early access).
Filter down to just ".dev EAP" here to see all registrars participating in EAP: https://www.registry.google/register-a-domain/#!/
And we have no control over registrar prices, or countries that any given registrar operates in.
And we have no control over registrar prices, or countries that any given registrar operates in.
The example domains linked to in the announcement are all down for me:
https://get.dev/ https://github.dev/ https://grow.dev/ https://accessibility.dev/ https://slack.dev/
etc.
https://get.dev/ https://github.dev/ https://grow.dev/ https://accessibility.dev/ https://slack.dev/
etc.
[deleted]
[deleted]
What happens if there is a conflict between companies that have submitted a trademark of a generic term to the Trademark Clearinghouse? (two companies that have a trademark of the same generic name, but on a different field for example) How is this settled?
I sort of get the appeal of a '.dev' TLD, but I wish that google donated the whole thing to those who were using it informally for local development.
That would have been a good gift to all the devs out there.
That would have been a good gift to all the devs out there.
The `.test` and `.localhost` TLDs are already reserved for such purposes: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606
.test is OK, but as was pointed out in the HN discussion on this topic last week, .localhost is problematic in some operating systems.
localhost is reserved for a very different purpose, though .local is a reserved pseudo-TLD for a purpose encompassing much of what was suggest by GP for .dev.
.local is for multicast. Don’t use it for anything else unless you want a headache.
Or support multicast/mDNS and use .local.
I feel like mDNS isn't used enough in general so there are weird cross-implementation bugs in it. (Partly just because of weird overlaps between early Bonjour entities, modern mDNS stacks, and weird-in-betweeners like "UPnP".) A lot more peer-to-peer applications could bootstrap better from mDNS than currently do simply because bootstrapping from known HTTP(S) endpoints is easier and less buggy.
I've wondered at times if, say, enterprise adoption of .local and proper mDNS might be a kick in the pants to sort out mDNS and make it better for everyone.
I feel like mDNS isn't used enough in general so there are weird cross-implementation bugs in it. (Partly just because of weird overlaps between early Bonjour entities, modern mDNS stacks, and weird-in-betweeners like "UPnP".) A lot more peer-to-peer applications could bootstrap better from mDNS than currently do simply because bootstrapping from known HTTP(S) endpoints is easier and less buggy.
I've wondered at times if, say, enterprise adoption of .local and proper mDNS might be a kick in the pants to sort out mDNS and make it better for everyone.
That's right,.local was a bad suggestions ; while the notional purpose is specifically residential, the local-use behavior that people are looking for is associated more with the reserved domain .home.arpa if .test isn't desired (.test is technically for testing DNS-related code.)
There are more devs than just web devs. Just sayin'
Web devs aren't the only ones that need test/dummy hostnames. That being said, as mentioned in another comment, there are other TLDs already reserved for such use.
I checked out a few, the prices are excessive imo, $11,011.00
Damn, the only domain I want is premium. And renews for $720 per year.
I guess that miiight stop squatters, but I feel like it will result in a squatter with deeper pockets.
I guess that miiight stop squatters, but I feel like it will result in a squatter with deeper pockets.
This sucks.
We used .dev domain internally in dev/testing environments and one day we were forced to switch domains because google bought it
We used .dev domain internally in dev/testing environments and one day we were forced to switch domains because google bought it
That's your fault for using something that's a valid domain and not a reserved one for exactly that use case decided on 20 years ago:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606
.test, .example, .invalid, .localhost
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606
.test, .example, .invalid, .localhost
.dev meh. I would dig an .api tld.
No one has got "null.dev". I'm disappointed.
I suspect it'll go soon, if not at the very top price tier.
It didn't work, top domains were already gone at 09:00
It certainly worked to stop me grabbing top domains.
I'm not familiar with all of the details of how domain registration works, but will these always have to go through Google?
I'm interested in buying one, but not from them.
I'm interested in buying one, but not from them.
Many other registrars, like Namecheap, Gandi, etc. also can register .dev
The full list of participating registrars is here: https://www.registry.google/register-a-domain/#!/
12000 a pop and filed under "small business".
Ok.
Ok.
Also as another commenter said, Trademark owners (GitHub, Slack, etc) could get their domains earlier at a lower price.
Which is funny because trademark owners tend to not be "small businesses".
I agree, although this requirement of from ICANN, not Google themselves
It's a descending price auction. That's the highest price; it goes down with each day.
Okay I appreciate you're still willing to engage my snarky commentary, but I really really disagree that 12k is going to be a good barrier to enable people to "get the domain they really want". It enables people with money to do that.
It looks like someone looked at this and said "well 12 grand is affordable but not at scale so people will think twice" - no this is just impossible for some people and amplifying unequal distribution. People with this kind of money already have a "I can get 1000 of em" advantage at $12 a year. No need to give those people more of a head start.
This policy comes from a place of privilege and I despise it. Period.
What's next, ReCAPTCHA bypass if you have Google One? (Ha I say that like it's not already implicitly the case that RC trusts a well tracked Google user more.)
It looks like someone looked at this and said "well 12 grand is affordable but not at scale so people will think twice" - no this is just impossible for some people and amplifying unequal distribution. People with this kind of money already have a "I can get 1000 of em" advantage at $12 a year. No need to give those people more of a head start.
This policy comes from a place of privilege and I despise it. Period.
What's next, ReCAPTCHA bypass if you have Google One? (Ha I say that like it's not already implicitly the case that RC trusts a well tracked Google user more.)
[deleted]
where is the men.dev domain? I see there is a women.dev...
$98 a year? Are they serious? Do they think all developers live in the first world?
Where are you seeing that price? Maybe you found a "premium" domain, the base rate seems to be (will be, after EAP) about $12/year.
Google domains page says $98 a year after early-access.
Doesn't it say "PREMIUM"? Here I'm seeing 12€/year: https://domains.google.com/m/registrar/search?searchTerm=ran...
As another comment says, .dev is about as inconsequential as .ninja.
It just happens to be cute for developers from a vanity perspective, but it doesn't matter.
It just happens to be cute for developers from a vanity perspective, but it doesn't matter.
They only care that enough do that they can make bank.
Stupid expensive for what really?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19179465 suggests it's an ICAAN rule to charge higher prices on initial offering.
444 comments a couple of days ago in "Google .dev domain early access" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19178757
444 comments a couple of days ago in "Google .dev domain early access" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19178757
They get progressively cheaper as we approach February 28. After that, I believe registrations are free with a $12 maintenance cost.
Minor correction, registrations are never free. Come 2019-02-28 16:00:00Z, they will be available at the base price. Registrars set their own prices, so depending on which registrar you're using, expect that to be around $12-20/yr (including the initial year).
Do you happen to have a source for the 16:00 UTC base price switch? I am not seeing a specific time on any of the linked pages.
The schedule is documented here: https://domains.google/tld/dev/
[deleted]
>free with a $12 maintenance cost
So $12?
So $12?
Free in the sense that there is no initial up-front cost (compared to the pre-sale pricing). Everything else is an initial dollar amount ($11,500, $3,500, $1,150, etc.) in addition to the $12 maintenance cost. After February 28th, there is no up-front cost but there is still a maintenance cost.
Would rather spend that money on validating a product idea or improving customer experience.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19178757
If the answer is they keep your domains, like they do with Adsense revenue when they ban accounts, then you should definitely be getting your .dev through a different domain provider who Google cannot avoid cooperating with because of ICANN rules they have to follow.
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/adsense-lawsuit/248135/